I meant the if I said my child was ASD without a test confirming so, and have advice about it, I'd say people whose child actually is ASD would be offended.
On the flip side, there are many adults who consider themselves to be on the autism spectrum who self identify (i.e., have not officially been diagnosed), and that has generally been accepted.
I know that there is one poster here whose child has tested as only about e average on at least two IQ tests still persists to call their child PG. I'm not saying there is a flat out score, but the general score is 145+, in the least. I prefer HG+. Why the desparate need to refer to a child as PG without quantifiable evidence?
What if I were to flip this around and ask why you seem to have a desperate need to exclude people who are likely looking for a community that can understand and validate their experiences? Why should a potentially outdated notion of how human intelligence works (this is at least true of the WISC-IV), or scores from different tests on different days with different confidence ranges, be used to govern who should be allowed to use the PG label without always having to preface it with "suspected"? I think there is a tendency to put too much confidence into IQ testing as an absolutely objective measure. It's the best we have, currently, but that doesn't mean there isn't subjectivity within it, either.
Val is so right about the confirmation bias. People try to make the data fit the theory, rather than make a theory that fit the data.
That also swings the other way. I have a kid who has scored in the HG+ range. We weren't expecting that at all, and we still are hesitant to believe that even the highly gifted label applies to him.
